User talk:Nufaiyrs

Messages should be left here.

I am willing to unblock this account if you agree to only use it to edit with from now on. Tiptoety talk 05:18, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not. Unblock requests on two of the accounts show identical parsing, phrasing, grammar, and even the exact same knowledge of wikilinking and other technical aspects.  For "new" users, this is virtually impossible.  For separate users, again, impossible. ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 10:30, 5 April 2012 (UTC)


 * when Bwilkins declined the unblock request at Sino-Malay, he did not even investigate our edits before declaring that we were the same person.


 * "WP:BROTHER. It's amazing - all these people living in the same house, all editing the same article, all finding the same open proxy. Truly miraculous! (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:37, 27 March 2012 (UTC)"


 * Sino-Malay gave a perfectly valid explanation for us using the same proxy. His entire internet browing history is open to all who use the computer. the next thing that was wrong with BWilkins claim was that we never edited the same article. Before mocking Sino-Malay in a sarcastic manner, he did not bother to look at the editing history of any of the accounts involved.

Nufaiyrs (talk) 16:45, 5 April 2012 (UTC)


 * The block log says that I'm blocked for "Abusing multiple accounts". not for owning multiple accounts. If you think that we are all one individual, the block is still not legitimate because abuse has not occured. I asked for evidence of abuse, such as block evasion, voting or even editing the same article., which Bwilkins claimed we did on User talk:Sino-Malay. I saw wikipedia policy on socking, and it says one person is allowed to own multiple accounts anyway as long as they are not abused.


 * I don't fully understand Tiptoety's comment about "only use it to edit with" if he believes we are different people. What I can understand is that Tiptoety agrees with your accusation that we are one person and he is saying that he will unblock this account if only this account is being used to edit and the other accounts stay blocked.


 * same knowledge of wikilinking and technical aspects are not proof of being the same person. Why don't you go to account creation logs and block every single user who knows how to wikilink? If a new user has studied the contributions of other users, its pretty easy how to figure out wikilinking. I have seen Sino-Malay's account and edits before, I've explained why we used the same proxy- I can see the internet browsing history and edit history of Sino-Malay and we can see the edit history of any user we want to.


 * If by parsing and phrasing you mean the fact that I split my response into different paragraphs and wrote my sentences in bullet point form, you know that I have totaly access to and can look at previous unblock requests on Sino-Malay's talk page, and if I don't do the same as Sino-Malay did the entire unblock request will come out as a single massive block of text with no spacing? I also use the same policies Sino-Malay has brought up, seeing as we are blocked for the same reason the same policies apply.


 * If you believe we are three persons or one it doesn't matter because the block log says "abusing multiple accounts", it does not say "using multiple accounts". The abuse accusation is totally false. Bwilkins claimed we edited the same article on Sino-Malay's talk page, which means he agrees with the accusation that we are abusing. we did not edit the same articles.... I showed you all of our contribution histories, the same article does not appear in any of them. the block reason is invalid.Nufaiyrs (talk) 16:31, 5 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't own this computer so I don't decide ultimately who gets to edit or not. Sino-Malay can ban all of us from editing wikipedia and I don't care. He wants his account unblocked and we can all stay blocked. I want my name cleared of abusing multiple accounts. I want to be unblocked first with an edit summary that says the accusation was not true, and then you can reblock me as an abandoned account. There will be only one account and one person editing from this computer in the future if that is what Tiptoety means.Nufaiyrs (talk) 16:25, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The problem is that, technically, you all show up as being one person since you all share a computer network/proxy. Note that "abusing multiple accounts" also includes evading a block, so, as far as we know the block is indeed legitimate. This is all detailed in the serious parts of WP:BROTHER, and that is why admins can't unblock you - we have no way of actually determining whether you're Sino-Malay's friend/relative or Sino-Malay trying to edit to evade a block except your word, and your word is not good enough. — Jeremy  v^_^v  Bori! 18:57, 5 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for responding, but if you look at Sino-Malay's block log, there was no previous block prior to hte block TNXman307 gave us all for abusing multiple accounts. I will show you all of our block logs in a second.Nufaiyrs (talk) 19:05, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Sino-Malay block log (clean of any blocks before Tnxman307 blocked for "Abusing multiple accounts")

Nufaiyrs block log (clean of any blocks before Tnxman307 blocked for "Abusing multiple accounts")

Sehidhen block log (clean of any blocks before Tnxman307 blocked for "Abusing multiple accounts")

Beajhure block log clean of any blocks before Tnxman307 blocked for "Abusing multiple accounts")

There was no block evasion if you look at these block logs and our edit histories. ie. Sino-Malay was never blocked during the whole time while I was editing. None of the accounts were blocked while the other accounts were editing nor did we ever receive any blocks till Tnxman307 blocked us all for abusing multiple accounts.Nufaiyrs (talk) 19:11, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Previous unblock requests
Two unblock requests, over a week, after I requested evidence of multiple account abuse, so far, no one has provided evidence, instead I was greeted with two declines which had nothing to do with the unblock request and the second decline contained outright false statements about alleged "techinical" and "behavioural" investigations which never happened.Nufaiyrs (talk) 16:40, 10 April 2012 (UTC)